Citation Nr: 20050141 Decision Date: 07/28/20 Archive Date: 07/28/20 DOCKET NO. 14-25 662 DATE: July 28, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder disorder (previously claimed as a torn right rotator cuff) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record does not reflect that the Veteran’s right shoulder disability is related to service or any incidents therein. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a right shoulder disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1954 to November 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, on appeal from a January 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The issue was twice before the Board in January 2018 and April 2020. In April 2020, the Board remanded for a supplemental medical opinion addressing a) the Veteran’s in-service complaints of and treatment for a right shoulder condition and b) his notation at separation of having had a history of swollen or painful joints. The Board finds the April 2020 examination adequate because the examiner addressed said records in providing the opinion and rationale. Thus, there has been substantial compliance with the remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder disorder is denied. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity for certain diseases. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), (b), 3.309(a); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a three-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a “competent” source. The Board must then determine if the evidence is credible or worthy of belief. Barr, 21 Vet. App. at 308. The third step of this inquiry requires the Board to weigh the probative value of the evidence considering the entirety of the record. The standard of proof to be applied in decisions on claims for veterans’ benefits is outlined in 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012). A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When a claimant seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant prevails. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for benefits to be denied. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). The Veteran contends that his right shoulder disability was incurred in service. His service treatment (STRs) shows an October 1969 complaint and treatment for the right deltoid arm and forearm. During his separation in September 1974, the Veteran noted that he had been receiving treatment for tennis elbow. Additionally, he reported “yes” to having or having had a history of swollen or painful joints. In his statement of present health, he stated that he was in “excellent health with exception of recent pain in lower extremities…” and the examiner also noted right tennis elbow. As no shoulder disorder was found, the clinician did not list a right shoulder disorder under the summary of defects. The Veteran’s post-service VA treatment notes, dated in February 2012, reflect a current diagnosis of impingement of the right shoulder on the problem list report. The Veteran underwent a VA shoulder and arm conditions examination in May 2019. The examiner diagnosed right rotator cuff tendonitis. The May 2019 opinion was deemed inadequate because it did not address the STRs discussed above. Therefore it is afforded no probative weight and will not be discussed further. In a supplemental opinion provided in April 2020, the examiner provided a negative nexus to service and explained that the “Report of Medical History and examination in [February] 1971 and [September] 1974 for separation did not reveal history or physical examination findings for ongoing acute or chronic treatment of chronic right shoulder joint condition. [The] Compensation and Pension examination in April 2019 documents a diagnosis of right shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis and no diagnosis for right shoulder impingement syndrome. Medical record review did not reveal continuous ongoing medical treatment or aggravation of acute or chronic right shoulder joint conditions during the time of discharge from active military service to the present day. The right shoulder joint condition occurred after discharge from military service.” Based on the detailed discussion of the evidence in Veteran’s STRs and post-service records, and the examiner provided a well-reasoned explanation for his findings; thus, the Board can make an informed decision regarding service connection. Barr, 21 Vet. App. at 303; Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Further, there has not been any competent medical evidence of record that contradicts the findings of the VA examiner. The Board affords this April 2020 VA medical opinion the most probative evidence against a finding that the Veteran’s right shoulder disability was incurred in service or a result of any incidents therein. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303. The Veteran is competent to report observable right shoulder symptoms such as pain. The descriptions are also credible. However, he has not provided a lay explanation as to when his symptoms began or why he believes his current right shoulder disability is due to his period of active duty service. The preponderance of the probative evidence of record weighs against the claim for service connection for a right shoulder disability. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, that doctrine is not applicable where, as here, there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for a right shoulder disability is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 49. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Stevens, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.